SF30-Amendment_3.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

PUBLIC BUILDING SERVICE

819 TAYLOR ST, RM 12B

FORT WORTH, TX 76102

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

47PH0518R0050

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM

04/04/2018

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable) 2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER

0003 5/17/2018

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7PQC 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended. is not extended.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE

RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

1. See attached Answer's to RFI's and Site Survey Report.

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print) 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

Previous edition unusable STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016) Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

X

RFI RESPONSE LOG Page 1 of 5

Date: 5/7/2018 Project:

RFI # Reference Received Returned Information Requested Response

1 Bid Docs 4/25/2018 5/7/2018

The spec Scope of Work page 33, paragraph 4 states the GSA will provide an inspection survey that identifies and list deficient areas to assist the Sprinkler contractor to correct the known sprinkler findings in the bldg. Would you please forward me a copy of this so I can complete our proposal?

Attached

2 Bid Docs 4/25/2018 5/7/2018

The spec state that the work be done under the supervision of a NICET IV Technician, on several other similar GSA projects your office has allowed a NICET III due to the more common type of work of this project will a NICET III be allowed,since the GSA has already had the scope done by an registered fire protection engineer?

At this time, GSA is not waiving the NICET IV requirement.

3 Bid Docs 4/25/2018 5/7/2018 Provide copy of the sign in sheet. Attached

4 Bid Docs 4/26/2018 5/7/2018

Please confirm that we will not be required to calculate the existing system or any additions/modifications to it.

At this time, GSA is not requesting hydraulic calculations of the system (and we are not anticipating a large number of new, additional heads.

Fire Sprinker System Upgrades, Hale Boggs Federal Building, New Orleans, LA

RFI RESPONSE LOG Page 2 of 5

5 Bid Docs 4/26/2018 5/7/2018

Please clarify to what extent drawings will be required, and please confirm that no piping layouts will be required to be drawn.

At this time, GSA is not requesting drawings & piping layouts will not be required.

6 Bid Docs 4/26/2018 5/7/2018

To whatever extent that drawings are required, please confirm that we will be able to survey the system without unreasonable delays or limitations.

GSA will make every attempt possible for no delays or limitations.

7 Bid Docs 4/26/2018 5/7/2018

Please confirm that a fire watch will not be required, or if one is required please clarify who will provide the fire watch and if more than one is required.

Fire Watches ARE required anytime a FP system is taken out of service. The craft may act as their own Fire Watch (provided no Hot Work is conducted) during the work shift period. However, if a system is out of service after the contractor leaves for the day or night, a Fire Watch will be required.

This expense will be up to the Sprinkler contractor. The GSA FPE will provide guidellines on the frequecy of the Fire Watch inspections and will work w/ the contractor if and when this arises.

RFI RESPONSE LOG Page 3 of 5

8 Bid Docs 4/26/2018 5/7/2018

Please confirm that all work must be completed at night or on weekends, and please provide clarification as to what hours we can expect to work.

Generally speaking, ANY work that makes noise or disrupts an occupied work space, SHALL be done at night and cleaned up at the end of the work shift. IF the area is not occupied, and the work noise is low, meaning no cutting, grinding, drilling, hollering, etc., work may be done during the day. However, this will have to be approved by the Project Manager and Building Manager.

9 Bid Docs 5/2/2018 5/7/2018

Any code-required additions or modifications that would require coring or cutting of concrete or structural members are excluded from the scope of work of this project.

Agree. GSA does not anticipate any structural drilling or coring at this time.

10 Bid Docs 5/2/2018 5/7/2018 All proposed areas of work are free of asbestos containing materials (aside from floor tiles).

Agree. The Builidng manager confirmed this during the walkdown.

11 Bid Docs 5/2/2018 5/7/2018

All sprinkler mains and branch lines are to remain in place as is and that the only piping to be reworked is drops, arm-overs, and return bends.

That is what is expected and anticipated.

However, there may be a few areas where a branch line may be needed, but I don't know of any now.

12 Bid Docs 5/2/2018 5/7/2018

In the event of leaks arising in sprinkler piping outside of the scope of work, the contractor will not be held liable for damages.

Correct, GSA would not anticipate any leaks occuring in areas outside of what you will be working as GSA will allow pressure testing at normal system pressure, observed for 24-hrs (instead of 200psi for 2-hrs).

RFI RESPONSE LOG Page 4 of 5

13 Bid Docs 5/2/2018 5/7/2018

In areas with institutional heads, all heads are assumed to be either new or will be replaced in the future as part of a separate project (i.e. no institutional heads will be reworked or replaced as part of this project).

Agree as GSA is unaware of any deficiencies in areas protected by institutional heads.

14 Bid Docs 5/2/2018 5/7/2018

Electronic submission of a bid and all associated documents (including notarized documents such as a bid bond) to Stephan Harris prior to 4pm on 5/17/18 is fully compliant with the instructions to bidders.

Correct

15 Bid Docs 5/2/2018 5/7/2018

That a set of documents, including but not limited to a full report on the existing sprinkler system and floorplans for proposed areas of work, will be provided prior to the bid day (if possible provide a timeline for when such documents can be expected).

Reports on existing system is attached.

Floor plans are Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) information and will be provided after award. The areas consists of a basement, seven floors of courthouse and federal building, and seven additional floors of federal building with a total area of one million square feet.

RFI RESPONSE LOG Page 5 of 5

16 Bid Docs 5/2/2018 5/7/2018

It was stated that ideally all new heads would be semi-recessed, centered in acoustical tiles (where applicable), and not more than 7’ 6” off any wall. In a number of situations we saw where relocating heads to meet the center-of-tile requirement or to not utilize the “small room rule” in NFPA 13 would add a significant amount of ceiling and above ceiling work to an area that would otherwise not require such work. We also saw areas where there could be potential concerns with replacing non-recessed pendant heads where they might be required due to surface mounted lights. Please confirm that where heads are code compliant and significant additional work would be required only for aesthetic reasons, the engineer will accept only replacement of the head in its existing

Ideally, GSA requests all new heads be replaced "center of tile" and that the Small Room rule NOT be used. However, there does seem to be a number of areas where this will be difficult and cause a large number of ceiling tiles to need to be replaced. For these areas, and in keeping w/ minimum code requirements, GSA will allow the Small Room rule and heads to be replaced where they presently are (meaning heads in these locations are allowed to NOT be center of tile. However, GSA fully expects this deviation only to be used in those areas where compliance would be very difficult and expects the contractor to act in good faith and to notify GSA of those areas where center of tile will be impracticle and the small room rule will need to be used.

16218 Juan Tabo Way Helotes, Texas 78023

Ph: (210) 592-1325 E-mail: Andre@GarabedianFPE.com

TX Firm Registration No.: F-10469

Fire Protection Engineering & Code Consulting

GAGarabedian Associates

Fire Protection Engineering & Code Consulting

GAGarabedian Associates

December 12, 2016

Mr. John Mancuso Via E-Mail General Services Administration, Southwest Region 819 Taylor Street Floor 12A, Room 524 Ft Worth, TX 76102

Re: Hale Boggs Federal Building-Courthouse

Sprinkler System Survey 500 Poydras St, New Orleans, LA

Dear Mr. Mancuso:

Garabedian Associates (GA) completed a site inspection of all accessible areas on all floors of the subject building on October 24-27, 2016. The inspection was intended to survey sprinkler head coverage and condition in the as-installed arrangement. The inspection did not include any inspections of overhead/concealed piping nor any functional testing. This inspection was a comprehensive review of the sprinkler system installation, performed as a supplement to field inspections performed by local installing contractors (e.g., Automatic Fire Protection [March3, 2008] and Stop-Fire LLC [February 29, 2016]).

GA was provided with basic floor plans and Building Manager access, to facilitate the inspection. Floor plans were somewhat generic and lacked room numbers and room designations (e.g., Office, Storage, Mechanical, etc.). Some plans include door tag numbers; however, those appeared inconsistent when compared to the field. Drawings were to scale, were orientated with true north, and were provided with column grid markings. Thus, instead of keying issues with room numbers or descriptions (not provided), this report includes annotated plans for each floor that use makers and a legend to quickly identify and locate deficiencies.

Compiled floor plans are provided in PDF as Attachment A to this report. A complete drawing set is also provided in AutoCAD 2015 format. The AutoCAD files include original building backgrounds and all annotations on varying CAD drawing layers. This will allow users to quickly isolate layers and determine the number and location of each specific class of deficiency (i.e., show only missing escutcheons, dirty heads, damaged heads, etc. as in-house work items and show missing coverage or spacing as subcontracted repairs). This format will allow quicker identification/confirmation of deficiencies and will allow more-accurate take-offs to be made when estimating repair work.

The report is accompanied by photographic and voice-tag documentation of deficiencies. In many cases, a deficiency tag on the plans is noted along with a photograph reference number (usually the last 3 digits of the photo series). The user can review the photographs and the voice tag (usually the .wav file located at the end of the photo series) to provide clarification on the observation.

COMMON/REPEATING DEFICIENCIES

During the survey, GA was able to classify 11 common deficiencies into categories and provide a legend on drawing so those deficiencies can be located. The base findings included:

1. (E) Escutcheon Loose or Missing. This condition can be repaired by building facilities staff, by installing/repositioning escutcheons throughout.

Hale Boggs Federal Building-Courthouse Sprinkler System Survey

December 12, 2016

Figure 1. Examples of Loose or Missing Escutcheons.

2. (S) Sprinklers Present but Improper Spacing or Coverage. This condition often occurred as a space was modified and walls added/deleted. In these cases, the deletion or addition of a wall created an over-spacing condition or a wall conflict (head too close to wall). Other uses of this tag indicate where the “small room rule” was incorrectly applied and the spacing to one wall on the room exceeded 9 ft. This tag was also used when a wall was deleted and placed two heads (that were once separate) placed heads within 6 ft of each other. These conditions will need to be repaired by adding/relocating heads to provide coverage.

Figure 2. Non-Compliant Spacing in Rooms.

Figure 3. Sprinkler Heads < 6 ft Apart.

Figure 4. Non-Compliant Head Spacing to Wall.

3. (M) Missing Coverage. This condition was applied where there was no adjacent protection provided and the protection within an area was essentially “missed.” This was applied to rooms, closets, and corridors, and was also applied to areas under large ducts, ceiling pockets, etc. These conditions will need to be repaired by installing branch lines and heads to provide coverage.

Figure 5. Missing Coverage Areas in Rooms.

Figure 6. Missing Coverage under Duct Obstructions.

4. (D) Damaged Heads. Head deflectors have been damaged over time, apparently due to impact.

These heads should be replaced since there may be damage to the fusible link and/or spray patterns and coverage may be compromised. This tag was also used for sprinkler heads that appeared to have suffered from corrosion and needed replacement (e.g., parking and loading dock areas subject to humidity). In some cases, whole branch lines were damaged by displacing the branch line. This type of damage resulted in non-compliant recess and/or damage to escutcheons.

Figure 7. Damaged/Corroded Sprinkler Heads.

5. (O) Obstructed Sprinkler Heads. These sprinkler heads were located too close to field obstructions, or storage was placed in proximity to the heads. They can be corrected by adding/relocating the heads or adjusting storage accordingly.

Figure 8. Examples of Obstructed Installations.

6. (H) Confirm hazard Class and Re-Space Sprinkler Heads as Necessary. The original design for many of these spaces was Light Hazard. Over time, spaces were reconfigured to include storage rooms and moveable (high-density) file storage. These conditions would require a conversion to Ordinary Hazard density and spacing protection (or greater). Areas noted on plans should be confirmed with tenants and re-surveyed for spacing in the field. Additional coverage may be required.

Figure 9. Increased Hazard Classification of Spaces.

7. (T) Provide Consistent RTI in Space. As renovations took place within a space, it was noted that different contractors may have substituted different styles of sprinkler heads. This designation shows areas where the style of head did not match the surrounding spaces. The contractor must confirm that activation temperatures and Response Time Index is consistent throughout a space.

Figure 10. Examples of Differing Head Styles in a Space.

8. (R) Adjust Sprinkler Head Recess. Branchline/Armover movement or ceiling grid movement has caused some heads to protrude or recess inconsistently. Areas marked by this designation should be checked against the manufacturer installation cut sheet (sprinkler head and escutcheon) for compliance. Correction may require adjusting hangers above-ceiling or correcting ceiling grid.

Figure 11. Sprinkler Head Excessive Recess Depth.

Figure 12. Sprinkler head Excessive Protrusion.

9. (L) Loaded/Dirty Sprinkler Head. Over time, sprinkler heads have collected dirt/dust and should be cleaned. Sprinkler heads that have been painted or plastered should be replaced.

Figure 13. Loaded/Dirty or Painted Heads.

10. (G) Grid Conflict. GSA noted several sprinkler head installations directly on, or near, ceiling grid. This creates and aesthetic and a maintenance problem as ceiling tiles are difficult to remove. It was a recommendation that these grid conflicts be corrected by adding/relocating heads.

Figure 14. Sprinkler Head/Ceiling Grid Conflicts.

11. (N) Add/Repair Hanger. GA was able to make limited observation of sprinkler pipe hangers in exposed ceiling areas. Missing or damaged hangers were noted on plans.

Figure 15. Damaged Hanger in Exposed Ceiling Area.

GENERAL DEFICIENCIES TO BE CORRECTED ON A GLOBAL BASIS

In addition to the 11 common deficiencies, GA noted “global deficiencies” that needed to be corrected throughout the project, but not identified room-by-room. Those included:

12. Replace all “On/Off” Heads Found in the Building. On/Off heads are no longer used in common practice and should be replaced with standard upright or pendent QR heads. These were commonly found in all electrical rooms on each floor and were, from time-to-time, found in telecom rooms (typically 1-2 location per floor– but not in any finished/occupied spaces.

Figure 16. On/Off Heads to be Replaced Wherever Encountered on Job.

13. GSA questioned the used of deep escutcheons in finished areas (e.g., 401 escutcheon).

Although code-compliant, GSA questioned the aesthetics in finished/public spaces. The installation may have been selected due to duct or other conflicts above-ceiling. The above-ceiling installation in these areas should be surveyed to determine if heads can be installed in a recessed position.

Figure 17. Deep Escutcheons to be Surveyed and Converted to Recessed Heads, Where Possible.

14. There were several areas where ceiling grid was damaged or not installed. This creates a problem with sprinkler head installation, since sprinkler heads must be within 12 in. of a continuous ceiling. Ceilings must be continuous and should be repaired and/or installed in all areas. GA has marked several of these areas on plans using sheet notes.

Figure 18. Examples of Missing/Damaged Ceilings.

15. GA encountered a number of shell unoccupied/unfinished spaces in the building. These areas are approximately marked on plans. It is important to note that compliant coverage is still required in unoccupied spaces. Ceilings are commonly removed and temporary upright sprinkler protection in unfinished spaces is typical, allowing the heads to be converted to pendent sprinklers once a floor plan is established and a ceiling is installed. A large portion of the basement area includes outdated sprinkler coverage (kitchen and dining areas no longer in use) and should be brought into compliance.

Figure 19. Unfinished Spaces Requiring Compliant Coverage.

16. Review of the sprinkler heads in the garage and loading dock areas indicated that they may be experiencing accelerated corrosion due to humidity. Corroded heads in finished spaces should be replaced. The age/condition of sprinkler heads in the parking area should be evaluated. It may be beneficial to replace the garage sprinkler heads as part of this corrective action/renovation work plan.

Figure 20. Aged/Corroded Sprinkler Heads in Humid Areas (Garage and Loading Dock).

CONCLUSIONS

This narrative report, the drawings provided in Attachment A, and the accompanying photographic documentation, represent the body of our site survey findings. Note that this report may not include all deficiencies; however, in comparison to prior surveys, it represents the most comprehensive study performed to date. It is expected that in the course of the repairs, used can apply the principles in this report to make additional corrections as they are encountered. Subsequent inspections should be performed in accordance with NFPA 25, Standard for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire

Protection Systems, 2014 Edition, and additional deficiencies should be noted and corrected during the normal course of inspections.

If you have any other questions or comments, please feel free to contact me by phone at (210) 592-1325 or by e-mail at Andre@GarabedianFPE.com.

Sincerely yours, André Garabedian, P.E. (TX PE 90954) Senior Fire Protection Engineer

Attachment A: Keyed Building Floor Plans (15 Pages 11 x 17-in.)

ASG/

16-068 WW Hale Boggs Sprinkler Surevy Report_12-12-16.docx

ATTACHMENT A:

Keyed Building Floor Plans (15 Pages 11 x 17-in.)

d. In areas protected by wet system(s), does the building appear to be properly heated in all areas, including blind attics and perimeter areas where accessible?

Hale Boggs/District Court Building or Location 500 Poydras StreetStreet: Jaromir EdlInspector

New Orleans, LA 70113City & State:

Sheet 1 of 1 - Use sepatate sheet for each building inspection

Owner’s Section (To be answered by Owner or Occupant)

A. Explain any occupancy hazard changes since the previous inspection:

B. Describe fire protection modifications made since last inspection:

C. Describe any fires since last inspection:

D. When was the system piping last checked for stoppage, corrosion or foreign material?

E. When was the dry-piping system last checked for proper pitch?

F. Are dry valves adequately protected from freezing?

Signature: Title:

Inspector’s Section (All responses reference current inspection) NA = Not Applicable

Inspection Report No.

Conferred with

Annual Semi-Annual Quarterly

Report To:

1. General

a. Is the building occupied?

b. Are all systems in service?

c. Is there a minimum of 18 in. (457 mm) clearance between the top of the storage and the sprinkler deflectors?

d. Does all electrical heat tape appear to be satisfactory?

e. Does the hand hose on the sprinkler system(s) appear to be satisfactory?

2. Control Valves (See Item 15)

a. Are all sprinkler system control valves and all other valves in appropriate open or closed position?

b. Are all control valves in the open position locked, sealed or equipped with a tamper switch?

3. Water Supplies (See Item 16)

a. Was a water flow test of main drain made at the sprinkler riser(s)?

4. Tanks, Pumps, Fire Department Connections

a. Are fire pumps, gravity tanks,reservoirs and pressure tanks in good condition and properly maintained?

b. Are fire department connections in satisfactory condition, couplings free, caps in place, and check valves tight?

c. Are they accessible and visible?

5. Wet Systems

a. Are cold weather valves (O.S. & Y.) in the appropriate open or closed position?

b. Have antifreeze system solutions been tested?

c. Were the antifreeze test results satisfactory?

e. Do all exterior openings appear to be protected against freezing?

6. Dry Systems (See Items 11 to 13)

a. Are dry valve(s) in service?

b. Are the air pressures and priming water levels in accordance with the manufactor’s instructions?

c. Has the operation of the air, nitrogen supplies been tested?

d. Are they in service?

e. Were low points drained during this inspection?

f. Did quick-opening devices operate sitisfactorily?

g. Did the dry valve(s) trip properly during the trip pressure test?

h. Did the heating equipment in the dry-pipe valve room(s) operate at the time of inspection?

7. Special Systems (See Item 14)

a. Did the deluge or pre-action valves operate properly during the testing?

b. Did the heat-responsive devices operate properly during testing?

c. Did the supervisory devices operate during testing?

8. Alarms

a. Did water motor(s) and gong(s) test satisfactorily?

b. Did electric alarm(s) test satisfactorily?

c. Did supervisory alarm service test satisfactorily?

9. Sprinklers

a. Are all sprinklers free from corrosion, loading or obstruction to spray discharge?

b. Are sprinklers less than 50 years old?

c. Is stock of spare sprinklers available?

d. Does the exterior condition of sprinkler system appear to be satisfactory?

e. Are sprinklers of proper temperature ratings for their locations?

10. Explain any “No” answers and comments:

Date 2/29/2016

Yes No✔ ✔

Yes No✔ ✔ NA✔ Yes No✔ ✔ NA✔

Yes No✔ ✔

Yes No✔ ✔ Yes No✔ ✔

Yes No✔ ✔

Yes No✔ ✔ NA✔ Yes No✔ ✔ NA✔

Yes No✔ ✔ NA✔

Yes No✔ ✔ NA✔ Yes No✔ ✔ NA✔

Yes No✔ ✔ NA✔

Yes No✔ ✔ NA✔ Yes No✔ ✔ NA✔

Yes No✔ ✔ NA✔ Yes No✔ ✔ NA✔

Yes No✔ ✔ NA✔ Yes No✔ ✔ NA✔

Yes No✔ ✔ NA✔ Yes No✔ ✔ NA✔

Yes No✔ ✔ NA✔ Yes No✔ ✔ NA✔

Yes No✔ ✔ NA✔ Yes No✔ ✔ NA✔

Yes No✔ ✔ NA✔

Yes No✔ ✔ NA✔ Yes No✔ ✔ NA✔

Yes No✔ ✔ NA✔

Yes No✔ ✔ Yes No✔ ✔

Yes No✔ ✔ Yes No✔ ✔

Yes No✔ ✔

221 Partridge Rd Slidell, LA 70461

504.931.7710 504.239.4232 afire, llc Automatic Fire Protection

Yes No

Signature:

15. See Control Valve Maintenance Table

Control Valves Number Type Open Secured Closed Signs Explain

Abnormal Condition

City Connection Control Valve

Tank Control Valves Pump Control Valves Sectional Control Valves System Control Valves

Other Control Valves

16. Water Flow Test at Sprinkler Riser

Water Supply Source: City: Tank: Pump:

Test Pipe Location

Size of Test Pipe

Static Pressure

Residual (Flow)

Pressure

Last Water Flow Test

This Water Flow Test

OS&Y Yes Yes Yes

17. Explain any “No” answers and comments:

See added list and Fire pump report

18. Adjustments or corrections made during this inspection:

19. Although these comments are not the result of an engineering rewiew, the following desirable improvements are recommended:

14. (See Trip Test Table which follows)Date deluge or preaction valve tested

TRIP TEST TABLE

DELUGE &

PREACTION

VALVES

Operation Pneumatic Electric Hydrolic

Piping Supervised Yes No Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Detecting media supervised

Does valve operate from the manual trip and/or remote control stations Is there an accessible facility in each circuit for testing Method of testing circuits

MAKE MODEL Does each circuit operate supervision loss alarm

YES NO YES NO YES NO

N/A

System No. or Description if multiple systemInspection Report

No. 1

11. Date dry-pipe valve trip tested (Control valve partially open) (See Trip Test Table which follows)

12. Date dry-pipe valve trip tested (Control valve fully open) (See Trip Test Table which follows)

13. Date quick-opening device tested (See Trip Test Table which follows)

MAKE MODEL SERIAL NO MAKE MODEL SERIAL NO

Time to trip Thru test Pipe

Water Pressure

Air Pressure

Trip Point Air Pressure

Time Water Reached Test Outlet

Alarm Operated Properly

Wthout Q.O.D.

With Q.O.D.

MIN SEC PSI PSI MIN SEC YES NO

TRIP TEST TABLE

PSIN/A

Hale Boggs

14th Floor

• 1408-Missing Escutcheon in break room

• 1415-Patton Construction – No sprinkler head under mesh ceiling

• 1415-hole for sprinkler heads too big (1 pc escutcheon)

• Main plant – missing heads under duct over 4’

• Key Rm. – missing heads

• 1308 missing head

• Lt. M. Crowe – head spacing

• Hallway by Capt. Aldana – missing head

12th Floor

• 1208 Storage – No Head

• Supply Closet-No Head

• 1218 – missing head (spacing)

• 1244 Kitchenette – missing head

• 1240 G – missing head

• 1240 I – spacing

• 1226 – missing head in hallway entry

• 1226 A, 1226 C missing heads (spacing)

• 1217 – no escutcheon in entrance

• 1211 – one head missing in judges chambers

11th Floor

• Supply closet – no head

• 1120 – No Sprinkler Head

• 1124- No Sprinkler Head

• 1026 – Reception – head too high in ceiling

• 1010 – Printer rm. – head too high in ceiling

• Hallway next to bathroom – heads too close, too low, too high, missing escutcheons

• Behind 834 – no ceiling (construction area?)

7th Floor

6th Floor

5th Floor

4th Floor

• 405 A – missing head

3rd Floor

• No apparent deficiencies

2nd Floor

1st Floor

Basement

District Court

6th Floor

4th Floor

3rd Floor

• C367- No Sprinkler Head in Closet (Reception)in back (AHU)

2nd Floor

1st Floor

PUMP ACCEPTANCE TEST DATA

PROPERTY OF Hale Boggs Bldg WITNESS BY Robert / Stop Fire ADDRESS TESTED BY Kenny Schmidt CITY New Orleans STATE LA DATE February 22, 2016

FIRE PUMP MODEL SIZE RATED GPM RATED PSI RATED RPM SERIAL NO.

Peerless 5AEF11-3 6x5 1000.0 150.0 3495.0 465614.0

JOCKEY PUMP MODEL HP/V/PH/HZ FLOW PRESSURE START POINT STOP POINT

Vertical Inline 460/3/60 10.000 165.000 160.000 170.000

FIRE PUMP DRIVER (ELECTRIC MOTOR)

MANUFACTURER APPROVAL FRAME SIZE RPM RATED HP VOLT FLA

Lincoln UL 3619078 1780.000 3495 460 n/a

FIRE PUMP CONTROLLER

MANUFACTURER AIC SERIAL NO. MODEL START PSI STOP PSI AUTO STOP TIMER

Metron 100000.0 FE-9043774-01 M435-125-460C 150 man no 0

TEST DISCHARGE SUCTION TOTAL TEST TEST PERCENT OF PERCENT OF

POINT PRESSURE PRESSURE HEAD SPEED FLOW RATED RATED

NO. PSI PSI FEET (RPM) GPM CAPACITY SPEED

1 195.0 35.0 369.6 3544 0 0% 101% 2 187.0 34.0 353.4 3540 500 50% 101% 3 181.0 31.0 346.5 3537 1000 100% 101% 4 155.0 28.0 293.4 3528 1500 150% 101%

CALCULATED DATA AT RATED SPEED

POINT GPM TOTAL HEAD VS. Factory

1 0.0 359.45 -4.9% 2 493.6 344.50 -4.8% 3 988.1 338.32 -2.2% 4 1486.0 287.91 -3.1%

P PPPP

0. 200. 400. 600. 800. 1000. 1200. 1400.

HE

AD

-F

EE

T

GALLONS PER MINUTE

PERFORMANCE CURVE

FACTORY TEST = FIELD TEST =

EXCELLANT - TOTAL HEAD GREATER THAN FACTORY

GOOD - TOTAL HEAD 5% LESS THAN FACTORY

FAIR - TOTAL HEAD 5-10% LESS THAN FACTORY

POOR - TOTAL HEAD OVER 10% LESS THAN FACTORY

FACTORY TEST RESULTS

TEST TOTAL TEST

POINT HEAD FLOW

NO. FEET GPM

1 378.0 0 2 362.0 500 3 346.0 1000 4 297.0 1500

FIELD TEST Volts Amps

A B C A B C RPM

Point 1 470.0 469.0 469.0 78.0 79.0 79.0 3544 Point 2 471.0 471.0 473.0 148.0 145.0 141.0 3540 Point 3 470.0 470.0 472.0 170.0 171.0 170.0 3537 Point 4 469.0 470.0 471.0 180.0 182.0 180.0 3528 Point 5 Point 6

NOTES:

The pump performed within acceptable tolerances. All pressure switch set points were tested and recorded.

All fire pumps must be excercized regularly as per NFPA 25

We were not allowed to perform a genset transfer due to facility requirements. We suggest that the engineers do this after hours and run the pump on the generator.

Pre-Proposal/Site Visit Meeting Agenda

Project Name: Fire Sprinker System Upgrades, Hale Boggs Federal Building, New Orleans, LA

Solicitation No.: 47PH0518R0050

Date and Time: Wednesday April 18, 2018 @ 10:00 AM CST

Location: 500 Poydras St, New Orleans, LA

1. Introductions:

2. Meeting Purpose:

This meeting is to provide a brief perspective to offerors on the nature of the work, to clarify the Solicitation, to identify any ambiguities in the Solicitation.

No statement made by a Government Representative, during this conference, can add to, modify or otherwise vary from the written provisions of the Solicitation and/or Amendments. Any changes or clarifications made as a result of this meeting will be issued as a formal written Amendment to the Solicitation.

“No oral statement made by a Government representative during this site-visit conference, nor any written record of such oral statements as may be made and subsequently furnished to the offeror, will be deemed to have the effect of adding to, modifying or otherwise varying from the written provisions of the invitation for proposals (including but not limited to specifications, drawings, and written amendments to the Solicitation). In the event the discussion or questions raised during the site visit indicate a need to amend the Solicitation, one (1) Amendment will be issued; and such Amendment must be acknowledged in the same manner and under the same conditions as all other written Amendments.”

3. Technical Requirements:

GSA is requesting a sprinkler rework of the Hale Boggs building’s sprinkler system. The sprinkler rework will consist of correcting sprinkler spacing deficiencies and replacing standard response heads with quick response heads. GSA will provide an inspection survey performed by a registered professional fire protection engineer that identifies and lists deficient areas to assist the Sprinkler contractor to correct the known sprinkler findings in the bldg.

All work is to be performed in strict accordance with the technical documents contained in the solicitation. The Contractor is allowed to use these documents to develop their proposals. Should they need additional sets for subcontractors, etc. it will be their responsibility to disseminate information. After award, all who received the technical documents but were not awarded the task order must return the construction documents, drawings, specifications and electronic media to GSA in the same condition as they were issued. The safeguard and dissemination of Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) building information clause Safeguarding and Dissemination of Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) Building Information, applies to all material handled by Contractors.

As such, safeguard of this information is an important responsibility. Additional inquiries, not addressed in the body of the clause, should be addressed to the Contracting Officer, Stephan Harris at stephan.harris@gsa.gov..

The total period of performance for this contract is 455 calendar days inclusive of required security clearances, pre-work submittals, and material ordering and receipt.

4. Proposal Requirements:

In order to be considered for award, offers conforming to the requirements of the Solicitation must be received at the following office no later than 4:00 p.m. CST on May 8, 2018. If mailing your proposal, reference “47PH0518R0050” on the outside of your envelope.

If the proposal is e-mailed, submit electronically to: stephan.harris@gsa.gov

Mailing Address:

General Services Administration Attn: Stephan Harris 819 Taylor Street, Room 12B01 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Office: 817-978-0106 stephan.harris@gsa.gov

Prior to responding, all Contractors should assure that their information contained at the following web: site http://sam.gov is current.

5. Questions & Correspondence:

This Conference will not be an opportunity to ask questions regarding the requirement set forth in the SOW. The Government intends to only address questions pertaining to the fair opportunity award process and Request for Proposal (RFP). All technical questions and all written correspondence (technical or otherwise) must be sent by e-mail to all of the following:

Project Manager (PM), Ryan Smith, (504) 218-2937, ryan.s.smith@gsa.gov Contracting Officer (CO), Stephan Harris, (817) 978-0106, stephan.harris@gsa.gov

All questions regarding this solicitation shall be submitted via e-mail no later than April 26, 2018 at 4:00 PM CST to CO, Stephan Harris at stephan.harris@gsa.gov .

Questions received after this date and time may not be answered prior to the closing date/time for receipt of responses.

Reference Use Solicitation 47PH0518R0050 in the subject line of all correspondence

6. Other Request for Proposal Issues:

Offers providing less than 120 calendar days for Government acceptance after the date offers are due will not be considered and will be rejected

6. Security Requirements: All contractor and sub-contractor employees that perform on this project will be required to meet the latest established and recognized requirements of Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD-12) as well as other local building access requirements and procedures. Individual employees will submit security clearance requests in advance of contract performance with all required forms, identification, and certifications needed to have security clearances adjudicated by the appropriate office of OPM.

Only those employees receiving favorable clearances will be issued the proper badges/cards to access federally controlled facilities. FAR 52.204-9 is included in the contract as well as other accompanying provisions and specifications that implement the current recognized provisions of HSPD-12. All personnel shall be cleared by ZoneB-

HSPD12.

Offerors will be required to comply with current sensitive but unclassified security directives as issued by GSA. The contractor and their sub(s) will also need to undergo security clearance by the Department of Homeland Security.

7. Walk Through:

8. Adjourn.